The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 4138 because it violates the separation of powers by purporting to permit the Congress to challenge in court the exercise by the President of one of his core constitutional functions – taking care that Federal laws are faithfully executed.

Congress ordinarily has the power to define the bounds of the Executive Branch’s enforcement authority under particular statutes, and persons who claim to be harmed by the Executive Branch’s actions may challenge them as inconsistent with the governing statute. But the power the bill purports to assign to Congress to sue the President over whether he has properly discharged his constitutional obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed exceeds constitutional limitations. Congress may not assign such power to itself, nor may it assign to the courts the task of resolving such generalized political disputes.

If the President were presented with H.R. 4138, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

Translation: Congress is violating the separation of powers by trying to make Obama stop violating the separation of powers. The executive can summarily re-write key provisions of a momentous health-care law that was written and passed by the legislature (while offering no legal justification for doing so), but if the legislature tries to get judges involved to hold him back, well, that’s a constitutional bridge too far. Essentially, he’s arguing that because Article II leaves it to the president to faithfully execute the law, only O gets to decide whether he’s “faithfully executing the law” by selectively ignoring portions of it that benefit him politically. Remember, this is the guy who ran in 2008 promising to roll back Bush’s executive overreach because he was a law professor and knew the Constitution ‘n stuff.

But let me ask you this: Would any president respond differently? Would any president sign a bill like the one the GOP’s proposing and then, duly chastened, start to comply? The novelty of O’s power grabs isn’t that he’d go to the mat constitutionally to defend them; presidents are forever claiming that attempts by Congress to rein them in violate Article II. (The War Powers Act is a perennial flashpoint.) You could, in fact, argue that this is all part of the checks-and-balances process: As different branches compete for power, they naturally seek to vindicate their supremacy in court. What’s novel about O is that, transparently, he’s refused to enforce parts of a major law (a law that’ll define his presidential legacy, by the way) not because of any constitutional problem but because they’re inconvenient to him politically. He needs to suspend the employer mandate for a few years, not because some unforeseen complication in enforcing it has arisen but because his party’s royally screwed at the polls as this boondoggle pisses off more and more voters and he’s frantic to minimize the damage. If he can define “faithful execution of the laws” to encompass an excuse as weak as that, then Jonathan Turley’s even more right than we thought. But, having made the leap to nonenforcement for reasons of pure political expedience, it’s no surprise that he’d now threaten a court battle over his constitutional powers. Presidents always do.

Still, good optics by the GOP to squeeze this threat out of him. The only thing I don’t get is why he’d play along. The bills will die in the Senate. Why would O give conservative activists a new reason to get their base excited to vote in November when he didn’t absolutely have to?

Comments

And why did he & Mooch both surrender their licenses? I’ll tell you- it was in preemption of disbarment!

frank on March 12, 2014 at 8:04 PM

Mooch probably broke the law in her patient dumping collusion with a hospital she “worked” for, or some similar situation where she advised a “client” how to break the law (a no-no). We know that at some point in her past, she wasn’t “proud” of her country, having to surrender her law license is probably the reason.

In the case of Barry, his law license was probably threatened by the fact that he LIED about his name, birthplace, etc, when he joined the bar.

IE: we know he claimed Kenyan origin past the point of being elected to the Senate with his BOOK PUBLISHER, AND that his name at one time was changed to Barry Soetoro (when he lived in Indonesia). No records (that anyone has been able to find) exist that show that he ever LEGALLY changed it BACK to Barack HUSSEIN Obama Jr.

With Obama, we know the issues are his lawlessness and violations of the Constitution. But the Dems and the MSM will paint this as “Republicans are racist”, that they’re picking on him just because he’s black. And that argument will likely carry the day with enough people. Obama’s popularity would then begin to rise again.

Bitter Clinger on March 12, 2014 at 6:08 PM

The past is not prologue.
Obama has taken lawlessness to a new level. Comparing him to Clinton and the ease with which he slithered out of the public interest is not comparable to the raping of the Constitution that O is forcing. The difference would be like knowing that a slimebag boyfriend conned your daughter into consensual sex, and having a thug break into your home and try to rape your wife.

“[T]he power the bill purports to assign to Congress to sue the President over whether he has properly discharged his constitutional obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed exceeds constitutional limitations,” the White House Office of Management and Budget said Wednesday in a statement of administration policy. “Congress may not assign such power to itself, nor may it assign to the courts the task of resolving such generalized political disputes.”

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha oh man

I can’t imagine anybody defending this could say that with a straight face, but I suppose there’s a first time for everything!

“[T]he power the bill purports to assign to Congress to sue the President over whether he has properly discharged his constitutional obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed exceeds constitutional limitations,” the White House Office of Management and Budget said Wednesday in a statement of administration policy. “Congress may not assign such power to itself, nor may it assign to the courts the task of resolving such generalized political disputes.”

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha oh man

I can’t imagine anybody defending this could say that with a straight face, but I suppose there’s a first time for everything!

mintycrys on March 12, 2014 at 8:16 PM

Exactly. Congress has the authority in the Constitution to DEFINE THE COURTS, as a matter of fact. It can define the number of judges, what their terms are (the Constitution is not what grants them lifetime terms) AND their jurisdiction!

Congress could (if it had the balls) for example, TELL THE FEDERAL COURTS THEY HAVE NO AUTHORITY OVER STATE MARRIAGE LAWS…

And why did he & Mooch both surrender their licenses? I’ll tell you- it was in preemption of disbarment!
frank on March 12, 2014 at 8:04 PM
Mooch probably broke the law in her patient dumping collusion with a hospital she “worked” for, or some similar situation where she advised a “client” how to break the law (a no-no). We know that at some point in her past, she wasn’t “proud” of her country, having to surrender her law license is probably the reason.
In the case of Barry, his law license was probably threatened by the fact that he LIED about his name, birthplace, etc, when he joined the bar.
IE: we know he claimed Kenyan origin past the point of being elected to the Senate with his BOOK PUBLISHER, AND that his name at one time was changed to Barry Soetoro (when he lived in Indonesia). No records (that anyone has been able to find) exist that show that he ever LEGALLY changed it BACK to Barack HUSSEIN Obama Jr.
ConstantineXI on March 12, 2014 at 8:09 PM

IMHO both were & are far too lazy to have ever practiced.

Further there would be no need for the state bar to launch an investigation into a lawyer, otherwise in good standing, over a name. If they didn’t know it wasn’t his name when he petitioned for admittance how would they afterward.

What think happened was that they charged very large fees to folks they lead to believe they could grease the skids for viz political connections. Both being too lazy to follow through, the clients probably became enraged & filed a complaint for failure to represent with the bar.

While its hard to tell from conflicting media reports I’m willing to bet that what Obongo taught was CLE (continuing legal education) constitutional laws courses. Courses which any lawyer willing to accept the paltry fee can teach.

Go into any CLE course and you’ll see one lawyer with a power point and the rest reading the paper, on iPads, sleeping, etc. it’s a scam- all about fulfilling the required hours.

frank on March 12, 2014 at 7:51 PM

You are most likely correct, since you are on many other subjects.

I wonder if he used a teleprompter then? The use of that from the first time I saw him using one, was a huge red flag to me. Then after seeing him and hearing just one speech, I knew.

What think happened was that they charged very large fees to folks they lead to believe they could grease the skids for viz political connections. Both being too lazy to follow through, the clients probably became enraged & filed a complaint for failure to represent with the bar.

Knowing all the dirt would come out, they surrendered their licenses.

frank on March 12, 2014 at 8:21 PM

That is also a very plausible explanation.

Seeing as how the Obamas are both lazy, entitlement mentality GRIFTERS, I could easily see something like that happening. I just wonder how they could “stiff” people in the Chicago Democrat-Mafia Political Machine that could bring such a complaint in the first place (with the Machine not quashing it) and BOTH still be ALIVE TODAY, much less Obama be President!

Where the hell is our Repub leadership? If Dems go unchallenged, why do we vote the GOP in at all?

melle1228 on March 12, 2014 at 4:04 PM

I can tell you our “Republican” Senate Leader is preoccupied with spending millions of dollars running several attack ads an hour on radio in Kentucky attacking Matt Bevin’s resume. Things he’d NEVER do to Obama!

I can’t WAIT until some court suit has shown zero and his minions lost BIGTIME!! Maybe THEN we can get Congress to draft up Articles of Impeachment.

Ah, I can hear it now…

Newtie and the Beauty on March 12, 2014 at 8:29 PM

Won’t happen. Congress isn’t going to impeach him even if he performs a post-birth ABORTION AT THE PODIUM at his next SOTU address. And as for the courts, forget it. Your odds of FINDING an honest judge to begin with are slim, and by the time they STALL it through the appeals process to SCOTUS, assuming they took it that doesn’t matter, because by then Obama may well have appointed more “justices” and even if he hasn’t, we know what John Roberts is made of…

I can tell you our “Republican” Senate Leader is preoccupied with spending millions of dollars running several attack ads an hour on radio in Kentucky attacking Matt Bevin’s resume. Things he’d NEVER do to Obama!

This alone calls for Obama the traitor, Marxist, unAmerican POS Obama to be arrested and jailed (at a minimum) for life. Not to mention all of the other laws he has broken. I want justice. You republicans in congress are afraid to do your job for fear of being called racists, or for fear of losing elections. It could also be that you want the same abuse of power when you take office. Either way, every single one of you took an oath to protect American citizens, and to follow the Constitution, and to uphold the laws of this country. You have all failed, and by not doing your job, have broken your oath of office, which is just as bad as braking any law. I want you all penalized in the worse and most painful manner. Is this not how you teach people lessons? Is this not what you do to other countries when they don’t follow the rules?

You are most likely correct, since you are on many other subjects.
I wonder if he used a teleprompter then? The use of that from the first time I saw him using one, was a huge red flag to me. Then after seeing him and hearing just one speech, I knew.
bluefox on March 12, 2014 at 8:23 PM

The Power Point, provided to him by the CLE provider, WAS the teleprompter. It’s not like anyone’s listening anyway. Just a sham that must be fulfilled in the same way insurance agents, real estate agents, etc must go through.

This alone calls for Obama the traitor, Marxist, unAmerican POS Obama to be arrested and jailed (at a minimum) for life. Not to mention all of the other laws he has broken. I want justice. You republicans in congress are afraid to do your job for fear of being called racists, or for fear of losing elections. It could also be that you want the same abuse of power when you take office. Either way, every single one of you took an oath to protect American citizens, and to follow the Constitution, and to uphold the laws of this country. You have all failed, and by not doing your job, have broken your oath of office, which is just as bad as braking any law. I want you all penalized in the worse and most painful manner. Is this not how you teach people lessons? Is this not what you do to other countries when they don’t follow the rules?

F_This on March 12, 2014 at 8:40 PM

If our Congress, courts, and Department of Justice worked as they are supposed to, Obama would either be in prison JUST FOR THE LAWS HE HAS BROKEN THIS YEAR ALONE or have fled to Kenya or some other country that would accept his ass.

It’s HISTORY that is going to convict Obama. No court (on Earth at least, don’t forget he will have to face the REAL God someday, and he has QUITE the body count already) will ever convict him because he’ll never have to face one.

But he won’t be able to escape the judgement of History. No man ever does. People might have been afraid to go public denouncing Caligula or Nero when they were Emperors of Rome, but HISTORY sure judged them harshly!

And that’s what Obama is. He’s BEYOND a Jimmy Carter. He’s Caligula. Or Nero. Or both.

But you’re right in stating that not a large percentage of them are Constitutional lawyers.

Del Dolemonte on March 12, 2014 at 7:07 PM

I was actually quoting a certified and bonified Constitutional lawyer.

“But where Congress is unwilling to act,” Obama continued, “I will take whatever administrative steps that I can in order to do right by the American people.”

“And if Congress thinks that what I’ve done is inappropriate or wrong in some fashion, they’re free to make that case. But there’s not an action that I take that you don’t have some folks in Congress who say that I’m usurping my authority. Some of those folks think I usurp my authority by having the gall to win the presidency. And I don’t think that’s a secret. But ultimately, I’m not concerned about their opinions — very few of them, by the way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers.

Yes, he really claimed that very few of the people in Congress were lawyers, even though it’s by far the most common profession in the House and Senate both.

Good stats to know, by the way. I wasn’t sure about the exact percentage of those in the House who were lawyers, but I seem to remember it was somewhere between a third and a half. 37% is in that range, but a little bit lower than I was thinking.

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 12, 2014 at 7:41 PM

The problem those in Congress who impeached Clinton had was that most of them had not “practiced” law in years, and then had to do so. While Clinton on the other hand had the very best lawyers other peoples’ money could buy.

BTW I love how what they call what lawyers do. “Practice”. It’s so Little League.

The Power Point, provided to him by the CLE provider, WAS the teleprompter. It’s not like anyone’s listening anyway. Just a sham that must be fulfilled in the same way insurance agents, real estate agents, etc must go through.

frank on March 12, 2014 at 8:42 PM

I see. Sort of like reading the legal pages on iTunes and clicking on I accept, but never reading them before installing the program.

All the more reason to bring Articles of Impeachment upon his patoot. NO POTUS, regardless of colour, creed, gender or ideology should be allowed to bend, fold, spindle, mutilate, twist, trample or otherwise ignore our Constitution.

All the more reason to bring Articles of Impeachment upon his patoot. NO POTUS, regardless of colour, creed, gender or ideology should be allowed to bend, fold, spindle, mutilate, twist, trample or otherwise ignore our Constitution.

Newtie and the Beauty on March 12, 2014 at 9:01 PM

There also should be CONSEQUENCES for repudiating your Oath of Office and the ENTIRE Constitution in a State of the Union address too.

And why did he & Mooch both surrender their licenses? I’ll tell you- it was in preemption of disbarment!
frank on March 12, 2014 at 8:04 PM
Haven’t heard this angle yet. Any cites?
Del Dolemonte on March 12, 2014 at 9:05 PM

A fiscal conservative can ignore congress and simply reduce spending and order the IRS to collect less taxes.

This will allow us to fix the fiscal problem this country has.

blink on March 12, 2014 at 9:18 PM

So grasping at the NOW are the Democrats that they aren’t even thinking of that possibility. They always act like they will NEVER lose another election when they get power. The Republican Establishment always acts like they are afraid that anything they will do (except cave to Democrats) WILL LOSE THEM POWER.

That’s why they win and we lose. Their side plays to win, our side plays not to lose.

Either way, the Democrats are loosing the Senate in November.
oscarwilde on March 12, 2014 at 4:34 PM
Measuring the drapes again like you did in Nov 12.
i_am_liberal on March 12, 2014 at 7:42 PM
Smells like Teen Spirit in here.
You must be talking about the 2012 election where your Democrat Party lost thecollege graduate vote, while increasing its already-record share of the high school dropout vote to 80%.
And that was the same election where a Democrat poll worker was later convicted in Federal Court of voting for your Cult Leader 6 times.
Ask Halliburton part-owner Soros to give you better material. Please.
Del Dolemonte on March 12, 2014 at 9:03 PM

You’re one of the few to mention this! All just assume he had the youth vote.

Because he thinks he is all powerful and he thinks just by saying this, it will scare the Rs – I hope not. He doesn’t seem to understand anything. But, I’m not so sure. Does he already see himself as a totalitarian head person?

I did not want to vote for Mitt Romney, due to his record on social issues. I claimed I would never do it if he was the nominee. Never say never… My husband convinced me that we should vote for anyone short of Satan himself to get rid of this man, that he was dangerous. My husband is almost always right and was spot on in this instance. Obama is a tyrant and an anti-Christ of the first order, as ConstantineXI points out about his similarity to Caligula or Nero.

just wonder how they could “stiff” people in the Chicago Democrat-Mafia Political Machine that could bring such a complaint in the first place (with the Machine not quashing it) and BOTH still be ALIVE TODAY, much less Obama be President!

ConstantineXI on March 12, 2014 at 8:28 PM

The first thing to pop in my head is “Penny Pritzker, Ambitious Billionaire Influence Peddler, Chicago”.

I don’t have the energy to build that case tonight, but the Little Red Lyin’ was selected, groomed, and protected by some BIG heavyweights.

Why the indigestion and bile?
The point of the article is that there’s not a damned thing anyone can do about it. It’s entire purpose is to get you even more pissed-off at that knucklehead than you already are. Is that really possible?
Just call Obama a few names and be done with it.

I did not want to vote for Mitt Romney, due to his record on social issues. I claimed I would never do it if he was the nominee. Never say never… My husband convinced me that we should vote for anyone short of Satan himself to get rid of this man, that he was dangerous. My husband is almost always right and was spot on in this instance. Obama is a tyrant and an anti-Christ of the first order, as ConstantineXI points out about his similarity to Caligula or Nero.

God forgive us.

pannw on March 12, 2014 at 10:27 PM

One of the reasons the Democrats win elections is that their Cultists always, and I repeat always, hold their noses and vote for their Party’s “candidates”, even if they despise what those candidates stand for.

The best example? In 2004, the DNC’s Presidential “candidate”, now our current goat’s ass of a SOS, cited as his primary “qualification” for the office of President his 6-month stint in Vietnam, serving in the American Military in a War his Democrat Party-including himself-later trashed for decades.

O’bama won in both 2008 and 2012 not only because of how the DNC turned out their voter base.

He also won because many Republicans selfishly stayed home. Many.

And since you seem to be a Hot Gas Noob, you’ll find some of them here in posts immediately whenever the 2008 and 2012 candidates are mentioned.

If Obama refuses to leave after his 2nd term is up, then “Real” Americans ( not including liberals who are Anti-American) need to remove him & his administration along with ANY democrat who supports this moron by any means necessary.

It’s pitiful it took five years of fraud to wake up the people that could have made a difference. The corruption of power is not only with Obama but it flows through our government at all levels and at heavy costs.

just wonder how they could “stiff” people in the Chicago Democrat-Mafia Political Machine that could bring such a complaint in the first place (with the Machine not quashing it) and BOTH still be ALIVE TODAY, much less Obama be President!

ConstantineXI on March 12, 2014 at 8:28 PM

The first thing to pop in my head is “Penny Pritzker, Ambitious Billionaire Influence Peddler, Chicago”.

I don’t have the energy to build that case tonight, but the Little Red Lyin’ was selected, groomed, and protected by some BIG heavyweights.

RushBaby on March 12, 2014 at 10:46 PM

What RushBaby wrote ^^: agreed. Pritzker family, everyone should read-up on them.

The only thing I don’t get is why he’d play along. The bills will die in the Senate. Why would O give conservative activists a new reason to get their base excited to vote in November when he didn’t absolutely have to?

Easy. It’s entirely possible that enough Democrat Senators, up for re-election, will decide that a law making the President follow the law is going to be popular with the Voters. They’ll cover their backsides, in hopes of getting re-elected. And that’ll put the whole steaming mess on the President’s plate, where he’ll have to actually sign it or veto it; live and for real.

Making a quiet, hypothetical threat about a bill still in the House is a lot less dangerous than letting it grow further!